I may lose my three readers with this, but...
I do not agree with Gay Marriage for one reason:
If they want us to keep our Religion off their Laws (separation of Church from State), then they should keep their Laws off our Religion.
Attempts to erode the Institution of Religion, excuse me, Christianity and its ilk, have increased as of late. We may soon see Pastors and Ministers dragged off in chains for "instigating" Hate-Crimes and intolerant Riot Incitement (regardless of whether or not riots actually happen...).
On this matter, I can not allow or be reasoned into a positive thought process concerning the idea of Legislated Gay Marriage.
If a Minister says that he will not perform the ceremony due to his religious beliefs, will he be prosecuted? Would the State order a boycott (illegal constitutionally) of his or her Church? Would criminal reactions (vandalism, arson, etc.) be minimized in the press and under-investigated by the police? Am I just paranoid?
However, I believe that I have a solution that would fit most people's comfort zone as per the issue. When my wife and I went in to receive our Marriage License, at the conclusion of the process, we were considered by the State to be Married.
No ceremony necessary!
Of course my religion and that of my parents requires our vows to be said before God, witnessed by family and friends, but it is not required by the State.
Enter the Civil Domestic Contract (CDC). It would grant all the benefits of Marriage to a couple of consenting adults who wish to have their union recognized by the State and everyone else, but without forcing the matter on the Religions of this country.
It would not be a popular passage of Legislation among the far Right or even some Moderates, but it would solve the issue, and put it to rest.
It would also (along with inclusion into the Military any homosexual willing to serve) remove from future elections one of the Left's most highly prized (yet lowest priority politically) standards.
Imagine if a conservative sponsored such a bill. I bet the Left would be furious and claim that it is "not enough", or "pandering politics", or an "attempt at placation". It would protect our religious ideals by acting pre-emptively to prevent harmful Laws from being passed such as described above. Our momentum in the next round (2010) would be bolstered by such an act, and we could slam all who opposed it.
To those of you who still aren't convinced, I offer you this:
"If we don't compromise, we will be compromised." ~ Alex Jamieson